I had a feeling it was something like that.
Well, I have actually done a bit of research on the Loch Ness monster, and I can throw in some interesting facts. But first, about "solar" research. Could it be that the article means "sonar" research? It would make more sense. Serious studies with sonar have been done in Loch Ness solely for discovering the monster, and actually have turned up many interesting things. A boat towing sonar equipment through the Loch detected a something
moving that was
longer than the boat. Very interesting, if you ask me.
Anyway, this book I read goes into a scientific study of all of the sightings. Basically, it proves that there have been too many sightings of similar creatures for them all to just be coincidences. As for hoaxes, there have been a few, but they have been discovered quickly and rebutted. Furthermore, many sightings would be so impossible to prove that you would have to be and idiot to make them up and expect somebody to believe you. If you wanted to have a hoax, you wouldn't have merely one witness (you) and no physical proof to back it up. In fact, in the 1930s if you had said you had seen the Loch Ness Monster you would have been laughed out of town. Therefore it only makes sense that the sightings reported back then are legitimate, or else the sighters are just masochists!
Anyway, as you can tell, I do believe there is something BIG in Loch Ness. Obviously the discussion of what it is is up for debate. Of course the most common identification is Plesiasouras (sp?). I happen to disagree with this idea. There is a lot of evidence for it, but there is also a lot of evidence against it. Among the other options are a giant eel, a sea worm, or an unknown amphibian. Each of these options has evidence supporting it and disproving it. The most believable of all of these options is actually the undiscovered amphibian.
Moving along, let's just say it
is a sea dinosaur. This hardly disproves evolution. The idea of dinosaurs living today is not taboo to an evolutionist. In fact, evolutionists think dinosaurs
do live today. What are these dinosaurs? Birds. Sad, I know, but it proves my point. There is no reason in the evolutionary theory why a family of sea dinosaurs can't live for millions of years longer than the rest of their unfortunate kind.
Well, I'm done. I couldn't help saying something.
Author